Obama? Wanting to authorize Gestapo tactics?! NEVER!!! And even if he did, it would be ok because this is change. This is different than some of
that other civil rights eroding stuff that bush pulled. This is change.

I read the article and don't see a problem. You still have the right to have counsel present during questioning. What changed was counsel is not
REQUIRED to be present if the person being questioned says they don't want counsel. Just another ruse by the Republicans to scare people. I recall
all kinds of stuff to scare people that was being reported when Clinton was elected. We were told by crazy republicans that Clinton was going to take
away the guns. He didn't. Same with the WMD's in Iraq, I recall them scaring people by constantly referring to a mushroom cloud if we didn't
invade. We ALL know now that was just a ruse too.

During his time as VP Cheney kept saying what he was doing was classified, but now wants all of the documents released to try and prove they got info
that stopped an attack on the west coast. Another ruse. The so called information was written in a memo in February 2002. The Bush admin claimed then
they got the info. However it wasn't until August when the torture started according to the Bush admin. These dates have been verified.

It is the same with this decision. If a person waives right to counsel, what is said can and will be used against them. Yet people want to scare
others into thinking you are losing something. You can still refuse to answer.

The patriot act states a warrant can be written by the federal officer trying to enter your house ON THE SPOT. No judge needed anymore, and also, if
you tell anyone they wrote the warrant that way and entered your house you have committed a felony. Yes that's right you cannot even tell your
lawyer. This actually does take away a right of ours that's in the Constitution.

Republican scare tactics don't work very well once their corruption and greed is revealed. How many honest upright people need their daughter to get
on TV to try and defend them?

Now again we have the same ole scare tactics about the guns, and the safety of the country. Just a ruse.

Bush took office in January of 2001. He DID NOT protect the US and its citizens. Why people accept 9/11 as being ok while under Bush's watch is just
nuts in my opinion. He was in charge, and many people told him about al quaida, it is on record. Yet what happened? We were attacked.
BUSH FAILED! Period.

This LIE that keeps being reported about how Bush kept us safe needs to stop.
I hope the whole lot is sent to prison.

Obama legal team wants to limit defendants' rights

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a
defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups.

While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark
example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanist

(visit the link for the
full news article)

wouldnt that cause a denial of service, if a man is accused of statuary rape, he denies doing anything but the girl claims to it, unless the man
confesses to it, how could they get a dna sample, by going above and beyond if a bill was passed like that. but in regards to denial of service if
that certificate authority is attacked then that would leave someone vulnerable to a nongauranteeable certificate, they would try and pin dna on him
and he would face the ratio of if it matches, its a trust agreement

Eh? You don't see a need for a neutral third party present during questioning? Is this what we as a society have come to?

I don't think you understand the key philosophy that ANYONE dealing with law enforcement needs to have. That philosophy is that the officer talking
to you isn't your friend, isn't your buddy, will help you get out of a jam, is required to tell the truth of your statements, etc. His job is to
incarcerate you by any means necessary, including coercing you to waive your rights even without your own knowledge and extract any form of admission
of guilt. They have been trained in such tactics and use them at every possible moment, including twisting the very words you speak.

Seriously, how do you think they twist "I'm heading home" into you being a drug lord having a ton of narcotics in your possession during a traffic
stop? Because people talk to much, words are twisted, and people are negligent in learning their rights as citizens. Do you think the tactics are
any different in a sealed room away from public view?

If you're being arrested or questioned by law enforcement, the first and only words out of your mouth should be asking for the right to council. Not
even so much as a grunt or peep after that until that council arrives. It's not an admission of guilt and is in your constitutional protected
rights. Yeah, it's an inconvenience, but so is a prison term.

At least with a neutral third party there during questioning, the chance for abuse becomes less and puts some chips on your side. Who is the judge
going to believe? The honored law enforcement officer, or Joe Public who stands before him in handcuffs? Take that third party away during continued
questioning and guess who has the upper hand especially with Lieutenant Corruption in the room with you?

Good Lord man, this is a stab in the back for the good guys -- you and me citizens of the United States. It's a step backwards. Yes, you can still
plead the 5th, but then you are trusting the system and the very law enforcement that wants to incarcerate you not to lie about you during that time
without that neutral party present.

Quit playing partisan Bush vs Clinton or vs Obama politics. By the time you realize both parties are evil they will erode your freedoms to the point
that the constitution really will become 'just a piece of paper'.

Stop trusting the government to do the right thing, because they sure as hell do not trust you.

Well, I really could care less at this point. They will do what they want, when they want, as often as they want. They are good at making changes
slowly, so as to not draw attention to the issue. I'm sure they have something else in mind with regards to limiting our rights with this change.
Too much going on nowadays and its difficult to keep up with the issues, let alone making any substantive responses for mitigation. They know this.
They operate from chaos, confusion and complexity. They continue to complicate our lives, so that we have limited time and resources to fight all the
issues. That's why I say....just let them go for it.

This will boil down to courage. The courage to stand up against a fascist government, whether peacefully or by force. They will choose how we
respond. Americans are tougher than most think, and will not put up with the crap dished out by windbags in suits.

Our world is run like a circus, and we are the park attendants....roadies if you will. We are despicable to them, and they only treat us nice so we
will do our duties and obey thinking that they care for us.

Obama is a fake. Why people couldn't see this in ANY politician is beyond me. People put way too much in politicians and the government. Its us
against them. Its just a matter of whether we'll fight, or whether we will continue to live our lives by their rules and succumb to their wishes.

What is wrong with you people? Are you all wearing beer goggles or should ATs just be renamed "Alternative Teen Stupidity" or maybe "Against Truth
and Society"?

They are not taking your right for a lawyer away from you. Only that if you talk without a lawyer it can be used against you. If you know to ask for a
lawyer then you also know not to talk until they get there. How does everything always get so twisted from the facts and end up being an Obama
hatefest? You folks have let your hate make it impossible for you to make an rational conclusion.

If you just remember not to talk to the cops without your lawyer,what danger are you really in if you keep your trap shut?.

Unless of course they want to whip out that legislation which allows them to hold you without charges,and torture you,which is another Obama
CHANGE...like no change!!.

Just don't talk to them,it used to be a law that they couldn't hold you for longer than a certain time,accept the fact that your dog starved to
death while they had you,but you might get fed a couple times a week.

At least you'll get plenty to drink while you are being water-boarded.

Stupid americans.

ANYTHING YOU SAY "CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU',WHETHER IN CONTEXT OR NOT," THE OFFICER OF THE COURT'S AFFIDAVIT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN
YOURS",>>>u r screwed.

"RedHatty", the Supreme Court already ruled upon this matter however, and thus I find it extremely unlikely that the Executive Branch could ever
overturn such a proposition. The original case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1966, in "Miranda vs. Arizona", during which it was found
that the Law Enforcement Officials had received a confessions which was inadmissible, as a one Ernesto Miranda had NOT been read or informed of his
Constitutional Right to Counsel (Bill of Rights: 6th Amendment), and his Right to not mention nor speak against himself (Bill of Rights: 5th
Amendment). Thus, there is where the term "Miranda Rights" emanates from.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
If you just remember not to talk to the cops without your lawyer,what danger are you really in if you keep your trap shut?.

Unless of course they want to whip out that legislation which allows them to hold you without charges,and torture you,which is another Obama
CHANGE...like no change!!.

Just don't talk to them,it used to be a law that they couldn't hold you for longer than a certain time,accept the fact that your dog starved to
death while they had you,but you might get fed a couple times a week.

At least you'll get plenty to drink while you are being water-boarded.

Stupid americans.

ANYTHING YOU SAY "CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU',WHETHER IN CONTEXT OR NOT," THE OFFICER OF THE COURT'S AFFIDAVIT IS MORE POWERFUL THAN
YOURS",>>>u r screwed.

Nice attempt at taking such incidents completely out of context. Water boarding, and what you misnomer as "Torture", are aspects brought forth in
dealing with Insurgent Combatants and Terrorists. This has never occurred to common criminals, so your illogical point is extremely useless in
relevance to the original matter being disussed on this thread.

This is why you never, ever, talk to the police. If you are a suspect, ask for your lawyer. If you are not a suspect, shut up. If you meet one in a
restaurant, at a ball game, at the mall, in the movies.... shut up. Anything you say, and I mean ANYTHING YOU SAY can be used against you, at any
time.

Seems that Mr. Montejo had requested and been appointed an attorney, but was not informed that an attorney had been appointed before he was taken by a
detective on a search for the murder weapon. During the search, the detective suggested that Mr Montejo write a letter of apology to the wife of the
victim.

exactly how that suggestion was presented, I do not know.

That letter was later admitted as evidence in his trial and subsequent conviction even though his attorney was not present when he wrote and submitted
the letter of apology. And Mr. Montejo did not even know he had an atty to consult when he was "convinced" to write the letter.

The specific question before SCOTUS is "After the appointment of an attorney, does a defendant need to take additional steps to accept the
appointment in order to secure the protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment?"

If SCOTUS decides that yes a defendant has to take extra steps, but investigators/prosecutors are not required to even inform the defendant that an
atty is available, it sets a very dangerous precedent.

Real life is not like TV shows, where on TV, once a suspect says they want a lawyer, the investigators leave the suspect alone until the lawyer is
provided & present. LEO will use every available means to coerce evidence that will convict, including but not limited to coerced confessions, even
after an atty has been requested.

Do you really think this is the proper procedure for LEO's? What rights do you think a suspect in police custody should have? Do you really think
that Mr. Montejo could have "refused" to go with the LEO on the weapon search? If so, exactly how does that happen when you are already in
custody?

This is not a "nothing-burger" this is a serious and potential revocation of our rights as citizens.

Hmm... you put it very well. I did not think of that eventuality.. no doubt that it will be used against people also! Reading ATS each day insulates
you a little from the mainstream view/knowledge of law and practices I guess.

So this is a little more insidious than I originally thought. I withdraw my earlier comment, leaving it in it's entirity as to not stuff up the
thread.

Just refuse to answer, sure that works. But... you have a constitutional RIGHT to council

One thing though that could throw a spanner in the works of this attempt by those pen pushers - without directly amending the constitution, any law
that violates the constitution is null and void as far as I understand. The constitution is the ultimate law in USA correct? Above all other laws and
rulings when it comes down to the bleeding edge is it not?
If this is the case, then one could argue against any evidence offered in court using surrepticious tactics by law enforcement officers.

Then again we come back to the 'your average person probably doesn't know this'... square one again eh. >_>

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.